TonyR - thank you for asking about policy formation. We are in the early stages of working out how to do this. I welcome the development of thematic DSC's and I know that some groups have started to work on and talk about nuclear policy, NATo - and other vital topics under the heading that interests you.

My own view is that we should develop policy in two rather different ways in DiEM25, reflecting the dual political approach that a movement that is also a party can have. I think it is one thing to develop an electoral manifesto and policy for the Elections in 2019... these have to be prioritised, and have to represent a list of priorities that draw our electoral partners together into a common goal and for a coordinated impact. That means prioritising certain police discussions and that is certainly what has taken up a lot of time and attention for the DiEM25 cc.

At the same time, in having a rich and varied pan-European movement - the members of our movement have involvement in all sorts of campaigns large and small, and our members have interests , and passionate interests in many different themes and topics. (snip)

Quite what the interface is between these two processes has yet to be worked out. For the time being, it is clear that we have a great deal or work to do!

Dear Rosemary, as a first step towards elaborating the interface it would be good, in my opinion, to abolish distinctions between active co-ordinators and "passionate" members. Personally I prefer being active to being passionate, at least when it comes to politics. I hope this is helpful.

You are right Wayne - we should abolish that distinction right now which I didn't intend. We surely very much need passionate coordinators and active members... and we have them! But still the challenge of the interface remains the same... when is it most important to turn outwards with a genuinely open debate and give people with different views an equal challenge for mutual vulnerability - that is to talk and to listen to each other? And when is it important to say - this is our policy for now and for the next two years - let's get out there and tell people about it, let's make sure we have enough electoral partners who sign up for it etc. etc. I believe that it is the rich interface between these two ways of using knowledge that makes for the best-built movement AND the best electoral wing. But it is a imaginative challenge for our times... Thanks for giving me another chance to explain what I am trying to say...

TonyR - thank you for asking about policy formation. We are in the early stages of working out how to do this. I welcome the development of thematic DSC's and I know that some groups have started to work on and talk about nuclear policy, NATo - and other vital topics under the heading that interests you.

My own view is that we should develop policy in two rather different ways in DiEM25, reflecting the dual political approach that a movement that is also a party can have. I think it is one thing to develop an electoral manifesto and policy for the Elections in 2019... these have to be prioritised, and have to represent a list of priorities that draw our electoral partners together into a common goal and for a coordinated impact. That means prioritising certain police discussions and that is certainly what has taken up a lot of time and attention for the DiEM25 cc.

At the same time, in having a rich and varied pan-European movement - the members of our movement have involvement in all sorts of campaigns large and small, and our members have interests , and passionate interests in many different themes and topics. (snip)

Quite what the interface is between these two processes has yet to be worked out. For the time being, it is clear that we have a great deal or work to do!

Dear Rosemary, as a first step towards elaborating the interface it would be good, in my opinion, to abolish distinctions between active co-ordinators and "passionate" members. Personally I prefer being active to being passionate, at least when it comes to politics. I hope this is helpful.

]]>2017-11-22T19:26:552017-11-22T19:26:55https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32928#p32928I wrote a reply to you which seems to have disappeared, so I just thought I'd recapitulate swiftly.

Yanis often describes the EU as a 'democracy-free zone' from its conception... so we may need to set about reinventing that from scratch, and this is why I think opening up far-reaching debates with 'people who have the appetite for it' is an excellent idea. Because I think this way we can perform the European demos if not from scratch then with a very different vision that will need to a very different kind of European constitution... On this I wanted to recommend to you Sam Hufton's two treatises - a member of London DSC:

I should perhaps add that after that the challenge must be how to involve people who for all sorts of perfectly understandable reasons have little appetite for it... and to wish you all the best with your Thematic DSC.

]]>2017-11-22T19:10:472017-11-22T19:10:47https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32927#p32927Statistics: Posted by Rosemary Bechler — 22 Nov 2017 19:10
]]>2017-11-22T19:03:372017-11-22T19:03:37https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32926#p32926No there will definitely be a very well defined political programme shared and agreed across the whole of Europe, and based on the European New Deal. Inevitably some electoral partners will be more invested in certain parts of that programme than others.What I was trying to differentiate between was the political program with which we will approach elections, and the wider debates in which we will be involved, also on very important issues but not ones who for now we will necessarily be taking to ballot boxes. I was arguing that the great advantage of a movement party is that you can prioritise differently depending on what use you want to put your argument to... and opening up a national debate on complex foreign policy issues on a pan-European basis - a wonderful opportunity for our members - may be all the better for not having to formulate a policy aimed for an election prematurely. I hope that distinction makes sense...

]]>2017-11-22T18:55:192017-11-22T18:55:19https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32925#p32925So if I understand your last post correctly, this would mean that the campaign for 2019 could be run on one or two main issues depending on alliances without a fully defined political programme (other than the overall approach of the manifesto). Would these priorities be the same across the whole of Europe?

]]>2017-11-22T18:41:452017-11-22T18:41:45https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32923#p32923My own view is that we should develop policy in two rather different ways in DiEM25, reflecting the dual political approach that a movement that is also a party can have. I think it is one thing to develop an electoral manifesto and policy for the Elections in 2019... these have to be prioritised, and have to represent a list of priorities that draw our electoral partners together into a common goal and for a coordinated impact. That means prioritising certain police discussions and that is certainly what has taken up a lot of time and attention for the DiEM25 cc.

At the same time, in having a rich and varied pan-European movement - the members of our movement have involvement in all sorts of campaigns large and small, and our members have interests , and passionate interests in many different themes and topics. Even more importantly , we all operate in different political contexts and the opportunity for building our movement should in my opinion be accompnaie by a commitment to open up publi debate in all the important areas. This is different from policy formation - but it requires just as thorough research to work out how best to raise issues for effective debate, and a completely new level of sophistication in communications. I'd like to see our members involved in this.

Quite what the interface is between these two processes has yet to be worked out. For the time being, it is clear that we have a great deal or work to do!

I wonder what Rosemary could say about the prospects for Diem25 in the UK. I noticed there are 4 DSC's in the country, seriously limiting the reach of activities. Labour as the main leftist voice is mildly anti-European (although seems to be moving somewhat), so hardly in favor of our END. Given the electoral system, an electoral wing faces enormous hurdles. So what would be a strategy for the European elections? What topical campaigns would attract support among left wing voters?

Hi PeetersI think the real challenge for DIEM25 in the UK is to help progressives and democrats on all sides of the Brexit process to organize a proper debate about the future of our nation. The Labour Party in my opinion is the best placed to do this in electoral terms, since it grasped early on that the binary referendum was profoundly divisive and reductive, and that it must try to draw people together to defend their common interests against a dangerously Ukipised Tory party.The hard Brexit being driven by extremist Tories is nothing less than a soft coup. Behind the myth of taking back control is the reality of a power shift away from Parliament and towards Ministers. This deliberate undermining of democracy is one of the most worrying aspects of Brexit.

What we need help with is the opposite … and this for me is where DiEM25 may play a crucial role in the next months and years. Because we need to start a debate wherever we can which answers people's questions about the UK and Europe and the democratic future we seek together. For this - parliamentarians need to fight for their rights to open up the debate to the wider community. We have to wrestle with a malign media... and we have a long way to go. But this could be the most important opening up of our politics in years... and hopefully lead to our renewed involvement of the UK in helping to build a democratic Europe.

We need a fully elected leadership and an unambiguous message for voters.

Hi there - sorry to be late - Ben!We do need a fully elected leadership and an unambiguous message for voters, and I think we are well on our way to evolving both. At the same time, we have the Validating Council that has an important role to play in the approval of Advisory members on the one hand and expulsion of members that violate the spirit of the Manifesto on the other. But I think it is really important that we search for a range of advice on specific areas of expertise and a range of talents from people outside our membership… and I would go further than this. I think it is essential that we accustom ourselves to engaging with people from very different political traditions and with very different views. An unambiguous message for voters is one thing… this must be a set of agreed policies in an election manifesto. But to arrive at this in the most vibrant and successful way, we need to be turning outwards and engaging in a rich and pluralist politics…which is why the existence of a flourishing DEM25 movement alongside the electoral wing is really essential.

]]>2017-11-22T14:28:212017-11-22T14:28:21https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32902#p32902I joined DiEM25 because I wanted to be politically involved but not to be part of herd of party members in any of the existing parties in Europe. My question is posited on the historical fact that Europe has never been united during the past centuries. It is still a "work in progress". Talking about Europe as if it were already an established entity requiring a few changes is like arguing that the Garden of Eden once existed but was destroyed by mistake or by evil intent and our job now is to re-establish it and all will be well. Let us face reality. The Garden of Eden never existed but we do have the opportunity, should we wish to do so, of building a Garden of Eden from scratch! That would be a different project!

The same is true of Europe. I admire the stand that Yanis Varoufakis and the founders took in challenging Europe. Nevertheless, I do not agree that we should therefore, as part of the debate, demonise the incompetence or lack of vision of the current leaders in Europe. In DiEM25 we have the opportunity to develop our thinking on these issues within the Movement and also, as a result of the recent vote, we will be able to offer the citizens of Europe a different vision and a different future through the electoral option. I doubt if any member of DiEM25 wishes merely to take over the existing mess and then patch it up.

We could, however, aspire to taking over a wobbling structure, renovate it without destroying it, and in doing so introduce a whole new concept of democracy in Europe. Rome wasn't built in a day, and I don't believe that the vision I propose could be done in a week, or in a month, or even before 2025. Yet Rome was built, it is there now, and is a great and historic monument to human development. And so, I believe, will DiEM25 be developed and become successful. Would you care to comment on that, please.

I might add, that I propose to establish a thematic DSC to discuss and develop these ideas if there is an appetite for it! I am preparing a working paper for discussion and will then ask if others will join me in developing this idea further.

P.S. I joined as a member of DiEM25 in May 2016 but because of problems with the Forum system, I didn't get access until last August. I was active, however, on Facebook and elsewhere promoting DiEM25 and stood for election in the recent CC competition.

]]>2017-11-22T13:00:082017-11-22T13:00:08https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32900#p32900A recent initiative that was started through the DiEM25 forum was to develop a paper proposing a position by DiEM25 on the subject of nuclear weapons (I hope that by now that paper has been forwarded to the CC). In our deliberations on this subject those of us in that thread found that there is no pillar under which such a policy area can be developed. Nevertheless we have now had a go ahead (I think I'm right in saying, although it hasn't been made explicit) to form a thematic DSC under which we can develop further some ideas on "Military and Foreign Policy".In the exchange of e-mails on this subject it was said that there are 5 incomplete policy areas under development and that there is no one to take on the development of more areas. My question then has two parts:.1. Those of us who have now subscribed to the Military and Foreign Policy e-mail list would be interested to know your point of view about DiEM25 developing an 8th pillar. Until now, for instance, DiEM25 has been very clear on it's refugee and immigration policy but not so clear on denouncing the roots of these conflicts and developing policies concerning them.2. Do you agree that policy can only be developed under supervision by the CC, or should DiEM25 as a grassroots social movement, be capable of allowing its members to freely develop the subjects that they consider relevant to the movement and taken to such a level that they can be subjected to the approval or rejection of the entire membership?Many thanks in advance for your answers.

]]>2017-11-22T10:38:072017-11-22T10:38:07https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32891#p32891Statistics: Posted by Rosemary Bechler — 22 Nov 2017 10:38
]]>2017-11-19T13:53:552017-11-19T13:53:55https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32786#p32786Statistics: Posted by peeters — 19 Nov 2017 13:53
]]>2017-11-19T08:51:082017-11-19T08:51:08https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15451&p=32779#p32779DiEM25 has always been clear that the AP is merely a curatorial body of individuals who do not necessarily share the same views as DiEM25 membership. However since its founding DiEM25 has now established an explicit leftist progressive pan-European policy platform and is proposing to take this into elections. The public and press will not make a distinction between the AP and CC. Is it not time that the unelected AP was stepped down or at least removed from the website? We need a fully elected leadership and an unambiguous message for voters.